XN000022-1982-08-05 — Page 3

THURSDAY, AUGUST 5, 1982

MR SCOTT SAID THE CRIMINAL LAW ACT 1977 OF THE UNITED KINGDOM SOUGHT TO CLARIFY THE POSITION AND MAKE IT MORE PRECISE. AND SINCE THEN THE MEANING OF +RECKLESS DRIVING+ HAD BEEN WORKED OUT BY THE COURTS IN ENGLAND.

HE EXPLAINED THAT PROSECUTION FOR RECKLESS DRIVING COULD ONLY BE SUCCESSFUL WHERE IT COULD BE SHOWN FAIRLY AND PROPERLY THAT THE DRIVER IN QUESTION HAD COMMITTED A PLAINLY PERILOUS PIECE OF DRIVING.

+ IT WILL THEREFORE REMOVE THE AMBIGUITY OF WHETHER A DRIVER HAS DRIVEN DANGEROUSLY, OR ONLY CARELESSLY; AND TO THAT EXTENT, THE CHANGE IS IN THE INTEREST OF DRIVER. THAT IS WHY

I SAID THAT THE CHANGE IS ONE WHICH DRIVERS SHOULD FIND

REASSURING. ON THE OTHER HAND, BECAUSE THE NEW OFFENCE OF RECKLESS DRIVING IS INTENDED TO APPLY TO OBVIOUSLY SERIOUS CASES.

CONVICTIONS FOR SUCH AN OFFENCE SHOULD BE LIABLE TO GREATER POWERS OF PUNISHMENT BY THE COURTS.+

MR SCOTT SAID THE HOUSE OF LORDS, IN AN APPEAL CASE IN 1981, GAVE THEIR VIEW OF WHAT MUST BE SATISFACTORILY PROVED IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH WHETHER A PARTICULAR PIECE OF DRIVING WAS RECKLESS. WHAT WAS HELD IN THAT CASE TO BE REQUIRED (IN SUCH CASES) WAS:

(A)

(B)

FIRST, THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS IN FACT DRIVING THE VEHICLE IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO CREATE AN OBVIOUS AND SERIOUS RISK OF CAUSING PHYSICAL INJURY TO SOME OTHER PERSON WHO MIGHT HAPPEN TO BE USING THE ROAD, OR OF DOING SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY; AND

SECOND, THAT IN DRIVING IN SUCH A MANNER THE DEFENDANT DID SO WITHOUT HAVING GIVEN ANY THOUGHT TO THE POSSIBILITY OF THERE BEING ANY SUCH RISK, OR HAVING RECOGNISED THAT THERE WAS SOME RISK INVOLVED, HAD NONETHELESS GONE ON TO TAKE IT.

THE LAW LORDS WENT ON TO SAY THAT IN DECIDING WHETHER THE RISK CREATED BY THE MANNER IN WHICH THE VEHICLE WAS BEING DRIVEN WAS BOTH OBVIOUS AND SERIOUS, ONE SHOULD APPLY THE STANDARD OF THE ORDINARY PRUDENT MOTORIST.

MR SCOTT STRESSED THAT AS WITH ALL LEGISLATION IT WAS FOR THE COURTS TO DETERMINE QUESTIONS OF GUILT OR INNOCENCE AND OF PUNISHMENT, AS WELL AS TO INTERPRET THE LAW AND TO DEFINE THE SCOPE OF OFFENCES, AS AND WHEN CASES CAME UP FOR DECISION.

HE SAID THE GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSALS HAD YET TO BE DEBATED BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, AS THE GOVERNMENT DECIDED THAT A LONG PERIOD BETWEEN THE INTRODUCTION INTO THE COUNCIL AND THE RESUMPTION OF THE DEBATE WAS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO GIVE THE PUBLIC AND ORGANISATIONS FULL OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE BILL AND MAKE KNOWN THEIR VIEWS PUBLICLY AND TO UMELCO.

/IN VIEW